Administration and Social Life under Vijayanagar c7.s2: Section V. The Burden of Taxation
Administration and Social Life under Vijayanagar c7.s2
- Language
- English
Section V. The Burden of Taxation
c7.s2.2
Now before closing this chapter it remains for us to examine how the burden of taxation was felt by the people. Sir Thomas Munro in one of his letters observes: “However light Indian revenue may be in the books of their sages, only a sixth or a fifth, in practice it has always been heavy....No person who knows anything of Indian revenue can believe that the ryot, if his fixed assessment were only a fifth or a fourth of the gross produce, would not every year, whether good or bad, pay it without difficulty, and not only do this, but prosper under it beyond what he has ever done at any former period.......I never could discover the least foundation for the assumption that the Hindu assessment had been raised by the Mahomedan conquest, or for believing that the assessment which we find, did not exist before that period......The few imperfect records which have reached us of the revenues of Vijayanagar, the last of the great Hindu powers, do not show that the assessment was lighter under that government than under its Mahomedan successors.”³¹⁷ A study of the inscriptions of the period leads us to the conclusion that at certain periods of Vijayanagar history the taxes were heavy. The people could not bear the weight of such heavy taxation and hence were at times forced to sell their lands to meet the government demands. A record at Tirukkaḷakkuḍi in the Rāmnāḍ district registers the sale of land to the temple of Tirukkōḷakkuḍi Aṇḍa Nāyaṉār by the Maravas of Vēḷanguḍi in Pūṅguṉra nāḍu in order to pay the taxes due by them on their holdings. The lands were sold under very distressing circumstances, and the Maravas had no other means of discharging their dues to the government.318 In the year 1519 the owners of lands and pāḍikāval rights in and around Tiruvaraṅguḷam in the modern Pudukkōṭṭai State were forced to sell their lands for repaying a loan which they had originally taken from the temple treasury for clearing up certain dues. vēṇḍugōḷ, viniyōgam, ercōru, kūṛrarísi and veṭṭimuṭṭaiyaḷ. They had to sell their lands for they were otherwise unable to pay the demands made by the Svāmi Narasā Nāyakkar on behalf of the government.319
c7.s2.3
³¹⁷ Minutes of Sir Thomas Munro, pp. 237-8.
318. 50 of 1916 : Rep., para 64.
c7.s2.4
Sometimes the authorities were opposed by the people in the levy of the taxes. The local organisations like the village assembly and the Valaṅgai and Iḍaṅgai 98 sects joined together and opposed the rājagaram. On a few occasions after due deliberation they themselves fixed certain rates of taxes which they would pay to the government. In the year 1429 at Tiruvaigāvūr in the Tanjore district, the assembled residents of Parāntakanāḍu and the Valangai and Iḍangai sects arrived at a settlement with regard to the payment of their dues to he king. In the preamble to their decision they traced the reasons for their adoption of that procedure, and said: "From the time of the Kaṇṇaḍiyas (Hoyśālas) the district had been declared to be the jīvitaparru of the (temple) servants; taxes were not collected by one single person; the lands were leased out (aḍavōlai) to other persons and puravari taxes were collected. In this way the whole district came to be ruined." After stating in such a preamble the difficulties the people were suffering under on account of the heavy taxes imposed on them, they fixed the rates of taxes to be levied on their lands taking into account the nature of the tenure under which the lands were held. They finally decided that no body should collect the taxes otherwise than in the schedule without the consent of the assembled body (maṇḍala) of people.³²⁰
c7.s2.5
³²⁰ 59 of 1914; Rep., 1915, para 44.
c7.s2.6
At Vṛddhācalam in the South Arcot district the Valangai and Iḍangai sects went a step farther and decided to offer civil resistance to the government. "The officers of the king (rājanya) and the owner of jīvitas oppressed the people . . . and the Kāṇiyālan and the Brahmans took the rājagaram (taxes). Hence the two castes decided that they should not give them shelter, or write accounts for them, or agree to their proposals, and that if any one proved a traitor to the country (by acting against the settlement) he should be stabbed."³²¹ The inscription which records this, though fragmentary, clearly shows that there was great oppression in the levy and the collection of taxes on the part of the officers of the king. A record at Korukkai in the Tanjore district registers an agreement among the members of the Valangai and Iḍangai sects who formed themselves into an organised body to offer civil resistance against bad and oppressive government, and resolved as follows: "Because they did not tax us according to the yield of the crop, but levied the taxes unjustly . . . . . we were about to run away. Then we realised that because we of the whole country (maṇḍalam) were not united in a body, we were unjustly dealt with . . . . Hereafter we shall just pay what is just and in accordance with the yield of the crops and we shall not pay anything levied unlawfully." Then they fixed the rates of taxes to be paid on the wet and dry produce of lands, on the produce of trees, such as jack, areca, palmyra, plantains, sugarcane, on red lotus, artemesia, castor plants, sesamum, turmeric, ginger, etc. and on professions of fishermen, potters, weavers, barbers, washermen, oilmongers, toddydrawers and painters.³²²
c7.s2.7
³²¹ 92 of 1918; Rep., para 68.
c7.s2.8
³²² 216 of 1917 : Rep., para 68.
323. 246 and 254 of 1928-29 : Rep., para 79.
c7.s2.9
Similarly at Peṇṇāḍam in the South Arcot district, the same Valaṅgai and Iḍaṅgai sects formed themselves into a body to oppose coercion and oppression by the officers of the government. The two records registering this state that the 98 sub-sections of these communities living in the districts on the northern bank of the Kāvēri, Mērkāṉadu, in Virudarājabhayaṅkaravaḷanādu, the 18 parrus of Iruṅgōḷapāṇḍi-vaḷanāḍu etc., “ having assembled in full numbers in the temple of Tuṅgāṉaimāḍam Uḍaiyār at Peṇṇāḍam alias Muḍikoṇḍaśōla caturvēdimaṅgalam drafted a bond of union to the effect that if the Pradhāni vaṇṇiyar and the Jivitakkārar used any coercive measures against them, if any landed proprietors among the Brāhmaṇas or the Veḷḷāḷas caused any harm to them through the revenue officials, if any of them submitted to unjust taxation or dessiminated false tales or caused damage to documents (presumably formulating their communal rights), if any one in the maṇḍalam accepted service as an accountant or was guilty of nāṭṭudrōham, the assemblies of these communities shall, as on this occasion, meet and decide the form of punishment to be meted out to the offenders.”323
c7.s2.10
Not only this. In certain parts of the empire where the people were not well united to offer civil resistance, they abandoned their original homes and migrated elsewhere. To prevent such migrations or, when they had migrated, to call them back to their old villages the government had to reduce the taxes. Kṛṣṇadēva Rāya truly says in his Āmuktamālyada that “the king is never prosperous even though he conquers the seven Dvīpas who has an officer who does not call back the subjects when they leave the state on account of suffering.”³²⁴ Thus during the time of Virūpaṇṇa Uḍaiyār the weavers of Perunagar left their district and migrated elsewhere on account of heavy taxation, even without paying the government dues. Hence the state reduced certain taxes payable by them and persuaded them to resettle in their territories.325
c7.s2.11
³²⁴ Canto IV, v. 237.
c7.s2.12
About 1446 the taxes seem to have weighed heavily on the people in certain parts of the empire. An epigraph at Tiruvaḍi in the South Arcot district records that as the taxes iṇavari and iḍaṅgaivari collected from the Valaṅgai and Iḍaṅgai communities were exorbitant, and the villages were distressed and the people migrated to other places, the country became depopulated, the king sent an order to Nāgarasa Uḍaiyār authorising him to cancel all those taxes.³²⁶ In the Salem district, at the commencement of the sixteenth century, the people seem to have laboured under oppressive taxes, and hence the inhabitants of the districts (nāṭṭār) of Magadai maṇḍalam left the country. Therefore to stop such migrations Tyāgaṇa Nāyaka, who was perhaps the local chief, granted a pledge (aḍaiōlai) to the people.³²⁷
c7.s2.13
³²⁶ 476 of 1921; Rep., 1922, para 46. See also Rep. for 1907, para 55.
c7.s2.14
³²⁷ 422 of 1913.
c7.s2.15
In the South Arcot district at the beginning of the sixteenth century taxes were heavy, besides much oppression on the part of the government. Hence Triṇētranātha Kaccirāyar, son of Paḷḷigoṇḍa Perumāḷ Kaccirāyar, who was the governor in the locality about Śrīmuṣṇam, revised the rates of taxes "which had become exorbitant in the time when the country was in the hands of the Kaṇṇaḍiyas. The cultivators owing to oppression had dispersed and the svarūpa (?) was scattered. He ordered (1) that the lands be measured year after year with the standard rod of 34 feet; (2) that 15 paṇams (including all items of taxation) be levied on one mā of dry land and 20 paṇams on one mā of wet land; (3) that towards araśupēru ⅛ paṇam be levied on each tenant, 3 paṇams on each loom of Śeṭṭis, 2 paṇams on Kammāḷa agriculturists, 3 paṇams on Kaikkōḷa weavers and (4) towards idaiturai be collected ¼ paṇam on eight sheep."³²⁸ But even this new arrangement seems to have pressed heavily on the people. Hence they again left their villages to other parts. Therefore Śiṇṇappa Nāyakkar, brother of Vāśal Ādiyappa Nāyaka, fixed favourable rates of assessment in Ś. 1435 (A.D. 1513-14). The following are the details of the new arrangement. The permanent settlement of kaḍamai kāṇikkai, kūḍi, māḍukāṇikkai, puravari and viniyōgam fixed 28 paṇams on wet lands and 22 on dry lands for such residents as resided in the districts; 20 paṇams on wet lands and 15 paṇams on dry lands for those who were going and coming; and again 15 paṇams on wet lands and 10 on dry lands to those that lived outside.³²⁹
c7.s2.16
³²⁸ 247 of 1916; Rep., para 64.
c7.s2.17
³²⁹ 246 of 1916; Rep., para 66.
c7.s2.18
Cinnappa Nāyaka of Tanjore in the year Svabhānu exempted the five classes of Kammāḷar, blacksmiths, carpenters, goldsmiths, architects and brass workers, from the payment of the taxes of kāṇikkai, kaṭṭāyam, pākkukkaṭṭāyam and talaiyārikkam, as they had decided to emigrate elsewhere when forced to pay them, owing to their inability to pay.³³⁰ During the reign of Acyuta Rāya also the people of Madiyaṇi Vaḍaparru were taxed heavily, and such taxes were collected rigorously by an officer called Rāyappa Nāyakkar from his camp at Tiruppattūr. The residents were not able to pay the taxes due from their village, kaḍamai and kāṇikkai. Hence a few of them sold their lands to the authorities of the temple of Tirupūvālaikuḍi Uḍaiya Nāyaṉār, while several families left the village being unable to pay their portion of the tax.³³¹
c7.s2.19
³³⁰ 413 of 1921 ; Rep., 1922, para 57.
c7.s2.20
³³¹ I.P.S., 748.
332. 492 of 1915 ; Rep., 1916, para 69.
333. 340 of 1926 : Rep., para 43.
c7.s2.21
Likewise the north-eastern part of the empire seems to have been oppressed by the officers. Hence the gavuḍas and other people of the Kavaṭalada śīme, unable to tolerate the injustice (avanāya) of the government officers, migrated to Masaveya śīme. Therefore the Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara Salakayadēva Cika Tirumalarāja Mahā araśu came to Āḍavāṇi in Ś. 1454, pacified the people, and induced them to reoccupy the Kavaṭāla district by offering them favourable terms of cultivation and occupation.332 In A.D. 1533-34 the artisan classes in the Kaṅganipaḷḷe śīme migrated as a body from their original possessions to Pākala and Kuṇḍiripi śīmes owing to heavy taxation, and the government immediately interfered in the matter and remitted the taxes.333
c7.s2.22
Nuniz has something to say about the nature of the revenue collections made under the Vijayanagar emperors. He says : "For this reason the common people suffer much hardship those who hold the lands being so tyrannical..... As already said, all the land belongs to the king and from his hand the captains hold it. They make it over to the husbandmen who pay nine-tenths to their lord ; and they have no land of their own, for the kingdom belongs entirely to the king ".³³⁴ Nuniz may be wrong both in this calculation and in his statement that all lands belonged to the king. Sewell comments on this observation of the chronicler thus : "Whether true or not this statement, coming as it does from a totally external source, strongly supports the view often held that the ryots of South India were grievously oppressed by the nobles when subject to Hindu government. Other passages in both these chronicles each of which was written quite independently of the other confirm the assertion here made as to the mass of the people being ground down and living in the greatest poverty and distress."335
c7.s2.23
³³⁴ Sewell, op. cit.. pp. 373 and 79.
c7.s2.24
Sewell's remark is too sweeping. Though we have much strong epigraphical and literary evidence to show that the taxes were heavy at certain periods, and that the people suffered much during such periods we may not be correct in taking that such oppression on the part of the government was either continuous or universal. Complaints about heavy taxation and oppression by the officials were due, as the inscriptions themselves say, to the occupation of the Kannaḍiyas. The period of the Sāḷuvas was one of oppression of the people, when taxation was heavy, and was perhaps combined with rigorous collection. Later too the people were oppressed more by the governors than by the imperial government itself. Such oppression was felt more owing to the method adopted with regard to the collection of the revenue than to the inherent nature of the taxes themselves.
c7.s2.25
This is shown by a few inscriptions of the period. An epigraph at Tiruvāmāttūr in the South Arcot district details the several taxes and contributions realised from the devadāna village and adds that the total annual value of these several taxes was only 12 pon. As the Government Epigraphist remarks, "this, if it could be taken as the average, suggests that the assessment of the several taxes in coin and contributions in kind must have adopted a very low rate."336
c7.s2.26
An epigraph of A.D. 1414-15 at Perunagar in the Chingleput district records the fixing of the amount of consolidated taxes from the weavers, oilmongers and the other commercial classes in return for their burning a perpetual lamp in the local temple.337 Another inscription in the Mulbāgal taluk of the Kōlār district in the Mysore State registers that Muḷuvāyi Hariyappa gave to the merchant Śaṅkapa Śeṭṭi a śāsana remitting the fixed rent of 2 haṇa he paid, besides many taxes on condition he presented daily 2 betel leaves to the temple at Muḷuvāyi.³³⁸ These inscriptions clearly prove that though the items of taxation payable in kind and cash were many, the burden of taxation was not much, for here we see a regular commutation of a variety of taxes, customary and otherwise, for comparatively small returns.
c7.s2.27
³³⁵ Ibid., p. 379, fn.
c7.s2.28
² See also *India Before the English*, by R. Sewell, pp. 36-58.
336. 32 of 1922; *Rep.*, para 45.
c7.s2.29
³³⁸ E.C., X, Mb. 20
c7.s2.30
Thus we see that side by side with the inscriptions which record the oppressive taxes, and the consequent difficulties of the people which drove them to the extent of either selling their lands to pay the government dues, or, where there was some organization among them, of offering civil resistance to the government, or where the people were not well organised, of migrating elsewhere from the district, there are some others which show that taxation was not so very heavy under the Vijayanagar government. But it cannot be said that the Vijayanagar taxes conformed to the ancient proportion of one-sixth, for many of the kings took advantage of every opportunity to increase the revenues of the state, and collected their dues with the utmost rigour. But it has been the practice to exaggerate the oppressive character of the taxes imposed on the people. Really the people were opposed to the method of collection rather than the items of taxes or the burden of taxation, for it is the method of collection which largely makes the people feel taxes either heavy or light.
Linked texts (2)
- Āmuktamālyada — Kṛṣṇadevarāya 1515, Telugu
- Epigraphia Carnatica